Friday, February 28, 2014

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you to Sandra Y. L. Korn, a Harvard senior double-majoring in history of science and studies of women, gender and sexuality (I heard you mutter, “Uh-oh”). In a Harvard Crimson post ironically titled “The Doctrine of Academic Freedom”, Korn has just advocated that Harvard remove itself from serious consideration as a center of academic research and become a generator of progressivist propaganda.

Not in so many words, of course. Her proposal, like Jonathan Swift’s, is modest:

… [The] liberal obsession with “academic freedom” seems a bit misplaced to me. After all, no one ever has “full freedom” in research and publication. Which research proposals receive funding and what papers are accepted for publication are always contingent on political priorities. The words used to articulate a research question can have implications for its outcome. No academic question is ever “free” from political realities. If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

In a way, Korn’s argument is refreshing in its near-honesty. We already bias our research output by our funding and publication decisions, is the essence of her reasoning. We already have student activism to make sure conflicting positions are unwelcome here. Why be subtle about suppressing political heresies? Why not make it overt by writing it officially into school policy? I’m only surprised she didn’t suggest “academic justice” be written into Harvard’s hiring, retention and tenure standards.

Which makes me wonder: what are her grades in her history of
science courses?

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Okay, let’s take it from the top: The Catholic Church exists to preserve and teach the revelation Jesus
gave to his disciples during his earthly ministry. “Go
therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them
to observe all that I have commanded you …. (Matthew 28:19-20)”

That means the
Catholic Church does not exist to
teach whatever fashionable notions its members want to embrace today, even
though Jesus’ earthly mission took place almost 2,000 years ago. Theological
inferences and deductions are permissible; doctrine can grow and develop;
discipline may change to a degree to better teach the faith according to the
culture and the times. But where doctrine is settled and dogma defined, no
change is admissible because it would functionally “change” (i.e. distort) the
revelation.

Semper Ecclesia
reformanda: “The Church is always to be reformed.” However, there’s
authentic reform, and then there’s mere innovation. C. S. Lewis, in The Abolition of Man, described the
difference between the authentic reformer and the innovator most memorably: “It
is the difference between a man who says to us: ‘You like your vegetables
moderately fresh; why not grow your own and have them perfectly fresh?’ and a
man who says, ‘Throw away that loaf and try eating bricks and centipedes
instead.’”

It should be no surprise that the Church doesn’t adopt all the
“reforms” many Westerners think it should. And it should be no surprise that
the Church’s sexual teachings haven’t changed. However, some people still
manage to cough up shock and outrage that Pope Francis’ out-of-context quote,
“Who am I to judge?”, didn’t completely undo 2,000 years’ worth of moral dogma.

Thursday, February 20, 2014

There’s kind of a time warp in Facebook Land. On any
given day, this strange phenomenon can cough up posts, videos and memes
originally uploaded as long as seven or eight years ago. In Facebook Land, the
Chuck-Norris-is-tough meme can never truly die.

Thus it was that I didn’t see the RantLifestyle article by
Michael Peckerar, “The Girls You Marry vs. the Girls You Hook Up With”, until
almost a month had passed since it was published. And not until I
read Peckerar’s article did I know about the RantChic article by Regina
Phalange, “Men You Marry vs. Men You Bang” to which Peckerar’s article
is either a complement or a response. When a man uses an obscenity to describe
sex, he’s crude and boorish; when a woman does so, she’s edgy and tough.

I played around with both articles on Monday, hoping to
extend them into a commentary on role expectations and the standards of a good
spouse. One thing I'd noticed was that, despite the provocative title of
her piece, at only one point does Phalange suggest that a man from what we
could call the “reject pile” might be good for a one-nighter or “friendship
with benefits”; in the other seven categories, we’re almost forced to
wonder why any woman would consider sleeping with such a loser, let alone
marrying him. By contrast, on several points Peckerar leaves us no doubt that
there are women a straight man should want to sleep
with ... but not necessarily espouse.

Friday, February 14, 2014

I fail miserably at romance.I’m like the guy in Billy Joel’s song, “Leave a Tender Moment Alone”: sometimes I get so tense, I’ll say or do something that completely spoils the moment … usually, it’s a joke.

So if I were to write a post telling men how to win women’s hearts, I would be putting myself in a false position.I don’t even have the excuse of being a priest;a priest could at least form some conclusions from what he hears in confessions and spiritual counseling.In fact, I’m convinced that even Dr. Phil is making educated guesses when it comes to women.

It’s especially difficult to write about romantic love when, in one sense, both “love” and “romance” have lost meaning in the post-modern world.Saint Valentine, his day stripped of its sanctity in the name of secular commerce, now presides over a semi-ritualized gift-giving that drips the same sappy sentimentality with which American marketing saturates every major holiday.Where is the passion, the adventure, the hypergolic mix of eros and agapē?At the same time, why bother with the jewelry and the chocolates when you can just as easily get laid on Groundhog’s Day as Valentine’s Day?

Search This Blog

Blegging Bowl

Buy Tony a cup of coffee!

Disclaimer

This site is not an official organ of the Holy Catholic Church.The opinions expressed on this blog are solely those of the author, and are not to be construed to express the opinions of the Holy See or the Dioceses of Fort Worth and Dallas. Doctrinal discussions should be considered authoritative only so far as the relevant official documents of the Catholic Church are quoted; any errors of interpretation or explanation are the author's alone, and I would appreciate correction.

Also, as this is a personal blog, the opinions I express are not those of my employers, their clients, their vendors, or any other affiliate.

Feedjit

Networked Blogs

Intense Debate Comments

ShareThis

NOTICE

Effective 12/21/2011, Outside the Asylumoperates under the Welborn Protocol: All communications, including e-mail and comments, are considered open for use as material for future posts. If you wish to submit a private e-mail, please put "DO NOT POST" in either the subject line or the message body. Please refer to the Comment Policy page for further guidelines on comments.